by Russel Norman
The NZ govt’s attempts to stop progress on serious global greenhouse reductions failed at the Vienna UNFCCC (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) meeting that wound up yesterday.
The UNFCCC meeting of the working group looking at further commitments of greenhouse gas emission reductions for industrialised countries has agreed on non-binding targets of 25-40% emission reductions below 1990 levels by 2020. From the press release:
The group also officially recognised that avoiding the most catastrophic forecasts made by the IPCC, including very frequent and severe droughts and water-shortages in large parts of the world, would entail emission reductions in the range of 25-40% below 1990 levels by industrialised countries. (See also formal statement).
It is a victory of sorts – it is an ambitious target but it is not binding and was watered down from the original draft by New Zealand and others.
NZ lined up with those countries opposing tougher emission targets in the form of draft text. We were singled out for special attention by the Climate Action Network because of our efforts (you can watch a video of their press conference). So on the one hand we have all the rhetoric about climate change and on the other, when we are in a position at an international meeting to push for stronger action on climate change, instead we try to stop others pushing for stronger action.
These talks in Vienna were precursors to the UN Climate Change Conference in Bali in December where the post Kyoto (commitment period one) framework is on the table.
[Update: Kiwiblog and No Right Turn have also blogged on this.]
Published in Environment & Resource Management by Russel Norman on Sat, September 1st, 2007
Tags: environment
More posts by Russel Norman | more about Russel Norman
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Hi Russel,
I can’t watch the linked video on my computer. Would you be able to elaborate a bit more on what New Zealand did and said at the meeting?
Thanks,
Miuela.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
[City Dwellers Live Longer, Save More by Driving Less
Erica Barnett
August 30, 2007 1:01 PM
New York City, long seen as a mecca of hedonism and self-destructive indulgence, has witnessed a startling transformation over the past few years:
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007191.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Helen Clark has gained kudos internationally for the bold targets she initially set on CO2 reduction.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think Russel might be referring to this.
http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2007/08/labour-is-two-faced-on-climate -change.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
According to Climate Action Network, NZ lined up with four other countries to try to stop mention of the 25-40% reduction target by 2020 (and mention of any level of atmospheric CO2) in the final text.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Russel, if the Greens were in power, what would they do to reduce NZ CO2 output by 40% (over 1990 levels, which means what – 60% on today’s levels?) in 12 years?
Given that every year our population increases and our emissions go up, I’d like to understand if you think that adding 20% tax to diesel will miraculously drop our CO2 output, or if the reality is you would be *forced* to:
* Nationalise dairy farming and then ban 80% of it.
* Ban car use except when at least four people are in a car
* Ration electricity and have outage periods
* Nationalise all coal mines and then decommission them.
* Ban pesticides and mandate organic farming
* Ban a range of imports
* Increase import taxes by 20%
* Require people to live in smaller apartments in city areas and ban lifestyle blocks and ban all new developments except for subdividing existing land parcels already zoned residential.
Because surely its going to take such measures to get that kind of reduction?
Or have the Greens carefully mapped out policies that would achieve this with no discernible change in lifestyle, economic stability and overall standard of living.
From what I’ve seen of your policies, you don’t make any predictions on what decrease in pollution they will achieve, and none of them look like they would be guaranteed to drop the CO2 output by more than 10%.
So what am I missing here?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
ZenTiger,
If that is all it takes to save the world (if all first world countries also followed suit), then I would say it is a small price to pay. I will vote for your party, if you decide to stand for election.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Samiuela, whoa there. I have no idea if even this list would make the slightest of difference to the NZ output of CO2. That’s why I was wondering of the Greens have quantified the required actions.
And to Save the World, as you said, you’d need every country to follow suit. First world only? China has overtaken the USA in the ‘biggest polluter’ stakes. You are being too generous perhaps.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think Zen Tiger has a point (we all know he has a point). Actually though Labour wont upset the applecart if it will loose votes.
[Whose is that law of motivation?.... motivation is a function of the importance of a goal and the probability of achieving it]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
ZenTiger: Personally, I think it’s worth setting higher targets even if they are overambitious. Even if nobody makes the target, setting a target that’s actually hard to meet gives those seriously committed to reducing carbon emissions great motivation to reduce them as much as possible.
I do think that if Labour’s commited to carbon neutrality seriously, 40% reduction in 12 years is a decent goal to be looking at, even if we don’t make it. It may be inconvenient and would result in some loss of luxuries like you’ve mentioned. But isn’t the risk of climate change that the science suggests worth giving up some of those luxuries for? This is just another example of Labour talking big about its commitment to the environment, and failing to live up to its promises.
China and the USA will never take the lead on this, because they don’t want to lose their economic advantages. We know someone has to take the lead, why not us? Why should we let greed get in the way of what may very well save the environment as we know it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Great post, ZenTiger
Ari – New Zealand’s output makes no difference in global terms, therefore our participation is purely symbolic. We’re not the problem, so there is no need to panic, and no need to take a loss in living standards.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I don’t agree with that because i don’t equate living standards with consumerism (a hummer for him a hummer for her , jet skis for the week end, a private jet, etc)
jh
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It will be more than “consumerism” (whatever that is) if our agriculture and tourism industries are hit.
It will will be more of a question of will you get health care, because there won’t be much revenue left to pay for it. People die, and for what? The feel-good factor?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In-da-restin’….
http://tinyurl.com/2rcjjv
Magnetic powered fridge.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So you say that the US and China should reduce their emissions but NZ shouldn’t because we have only a small % of global emissions.
Do you think that the state of Connecticut should reduce their emissions? There are only 3,504,809 people there (Ref) so presumably they have only a small % of global emissions and so their output makes no difference in global terms, therefore their participation is purely symbolic, they’re not the problem, so they have no need to panic, and no need to take a loss in living standards?
What about the city of Los Angeles? There are only 3,819,951 citizens there (Ref) so presumably they’re not the problem either?
So where in the world should reduce their emissions according to you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I believe these targets are set on a country-by-country basis.
I also have no idea if we’re causing global warming. Opinion amongst those more knowledgeable than myself remains, of course, divided.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BTW: When will the Green Party be entering? And if not, why not?
http://tinyurl.com/3d68ua
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m really hungry but what’s the point of eating one mouthful of food. I mean one mouthful is not going to stop me being hungry is it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Stuey,
You make a good point about how emissions reductions should be on a per capita basis, rather than a per country basis. It is my belief that the countries (such as Australia) arguing that they can’t make much difference compared to China, are simply not prepared to take any meaningful action, and are looking for a scapegoat.
Put yourself in the position of a Chinese politician: how would it feel to have a country with one fifth the population (the USA) telling you that you have to make as big a cuts in emissions as it does, which in effect equates to a four or five times bigger per capita reduction? Furthermore, China is being asked to make cuts starting from a much lower per capita emission level than the USA.
Of course, this tactic of comparing a nations emissions to China could backfire on the first world countries. It would be quite legitimate for China to front up to an international climate meeting and say:
1) We realise that cutting CO2 emissions to 40% below 1990 levels is critical for environmental reasons.
2) We agree with you that every nation must take responsibility for reducing emissions.
3) Therefore, we propose a global carbon market, with a cap on credits which is 40% below 1990 levels. To be fair on all nations, every nation should be allocated carbon credits in proportion to its population.
The effect of a plan such as (3) would mean the countries such as Australia and the USA would have to make a much bigger reduction than 40%, and it is quite possible China would not have to make any reduction, because of its much larger population. Indeed, it is easy to see a situation where China would sell carbon credits to the USA.
Of course (3) is very unlikely to be implemented, because the current US, Australian, and now it seems NZ governments don’t have a real commitment to serious emissions reductions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PEL writes:
“I also have no idea if we’re causing global warming. Opinion amongst those more knowledgeable than myself remains, of course, divided.”
You are wrong. There are very few (numerically or percentage wise) climate scientists who do not believe the current global warming is caused by humans.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OK … I have to correct myself. If China made the same CO2 reduction as the US, it would be a four or five times smaller reduction per capita. My maths is not as good as it used to be.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PEL: “when will the Green Party enter [the JunkScience contest]?”
Maybe when you donate the entry fee to us:
http://www.greens.org.nz/office/donate.htm
“A fee of $15 is required for each entry submitted. There will be no refunds of entry fees.”
Hmm, this sounds less like a honest contest and more like a money making exercise. Bit like one of those dodgy premium phone call competitions run by TV programmes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>There are very few climate scientists who do not believe
You’re wrong. There is no scientific consensus on AGW, therefore it is true to say opinion remains divided.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
From Kiwiblogg
# Redbaiter Says:
September 1st, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Survey: Less than half of all published scientists endorse global warming theory.
http://tinyurl.com/ynoggu
jh
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There is an analysis form Tim Lambert here
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/classifying_abstracts_on_globa .php#more
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oreskes responds to Schulte
http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2007/08/oreskes_responds_to_schu lte.php
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Using 1990 as the base year instead of 1980 or 1970 ensures that the USA is hit harder than the EU. Using 1980 as the base year would treat EU and USA equally harshly and would also improve New Zealand and the other former soviet country’s position relative to the EU.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
re that supposed “shocking” new study:
“The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy.”
The study hasn’t even made it through peer review to publication yet!
I could write a paper saying I had done a study showing that 99% of people from Eketahuna like polka music and submit it for publication, but it wouldn’t make it true until people had had a chance to check my methods.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PEL: Everyone’s output matters because we’re already emitting too much. If we cut back .1% of global carbon emissions, not only is that .1% that someone else doesn’t have to do, but it might also encourage people polluting fifty times more than us to cut back 5% of global carbon emissions
Also, if by “scientific consensus”, you mean universal agreement, even such things as gravity and relativity have their detractors of certain parts of the theory. Here’s how dictionary.com defines consensus:
1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
2. general agreement or concord; harmony.
If we’re going by dictionary.com’s definition, the scientific consensus is clearly that global warming is real and very likely to be anthropogenic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There are many aspects concerning climate change for which there is not a consensus amongst atmospheric scientists, for example what the impact of climate change on tropical cyclone frequency and intensity will be. However, there is widespread consensus amongst climate scientists that the mean global temperature has been increasing during the last few decades, and that this is caused by human activity.
It is my belief that although further climate research is invaluable, the science of climate change is well enough established that we now need to focus on action to avert the worst consequences. Its all about risk management. We may not be able to deterministically predict all the effects of climate change, but something with a very high cost is predicted with even moderate confidence (such as increased TC frequency and intensity), something should be done.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
One more thing about this supposed lack of consensus. Can someone please present a list of climate scientists who disagree with the assertion that recent global warming is likely due to human activity (including where they work, and their area of expertise)? This should be easy enough to do if more that 50% of climate scientists really have published papers disagreeing with warming being caused by human activity (author affiliation is included in all the journal papers I have read).
To some enterprising person who might actually want to take this task on, I’ll give you some advice on where to start. Start looking at the abstracts of the American Meteorological Society journals, in particular the Journal of Climate. Abstracts are available for free from here: http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-archive
Happy counting (you won’t need to use too many fingers).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
stuey, The infamous hockey stick study hadn’t even made it through peer review when it was highlighted by the IPCC purely for PR reasons. The hockey stick gave the impression that the last centuries global warming was unprecedented. Unfortunately the statistical methods used to identify proxies was seriously flawed and had the effect of eliminating the MWP from the historic temperatures on the graph. The IPCC report that introduced the world to the hockey stick in full page, full colour, also included a much more accurate graph in quarter page monochrome.
Unfortunbately the hockey stick is a beautifully simple graphic so it continues to be used despite being proven false. Nobody knows how to get this particular genie back in the bottle.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
samiuela, you could save time by going through the footnotes in the skeptical environmentalist’s new book. It doesn’t really matter what the scientific consensus is, all that matters is whether the consensus is correct. And even if the consensus is wrong it may still lead to the right solutions. The classic example is the scientific consensus that cholera was spread by the miasma. In London the chief engineer of the Board of Works concluded that the miasma originated from the raw sewage floating on the Thames so he convinced the City of the need to build sewers to take the sewage out to sea. It was only when the scheme was almost completed and cholera and typhoid had been eliminated from most parts of the City that it was proved beyond reasonable scientific doubt that the diseases were actual spread by sewage contimanting the ground water. Right solution, wrong reason.
Even if human induced climate change is proved false the solutions implemented will have reduced other proven environmental problems such as particulate polution and oil depletion. And in the case of northern hemisphere farmers installing biogas digesters there are numerous environmental benefits. Reduced water pollution, reduced electricity and natural gas consumption, less use of petrochemical fertilisers, reduced odour pollution, etc, etc.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kevyn, I partly agree with you.
However, the anti-global warming brigade really piss me off for several reasons:
1) They, by and large (there are a few exceptions) do not understand how science works. They use non-scientific reasoning to try discredit the work of hundreds of good scientists.
2) The same people trying to discredit human caused global warming are not usually advocating any mitigation activity against global warming (which they presumably believe has natural causes). Rather, they usually advocate business as usual. This is different from you sewer example, where action was advocated, but for the wrong reason. People trying to stop actions to reduce the effect of global warming (even if it is later found to be natural) really piss me off in the extreme … they are %^%$&^ around with my and your children’s future.
By the way, _personally_ I would put the probability that global warming is caused by human activity at a lot higher value than the IPCC did. One sobering thought is that scientists tend to be conservative … so when the IPCC says something is likely, what does this really mean (they claim a figure around 90% ….)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kevyn, what is the population of the South Island? There was a letter to the editor of The Press re their special feature on statistics. The letter writer had been part of the Lyttelton Tunnel feasability study. He said the population then was the same as now… (I assume there must have been an error in the Press)?
jh
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh,
According to the yearbooks:
1955 670,000
1965 780,000
1975 860,000
2005 1,050,000
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
samiuela, Most of the anti-warming sites do seem to justify your remarks. Their are a few exceptions that do appear to be hosted by scientists. Their are a lot of valid questions particularly regarding assumptions that have to be made in the absence of adequate knowledge. Although I can follow the debates (if I skip the mathematical formulae) I lack the specialist knowledge needed to fully assess the merits of the various arguments. I can understand why a large proportion of scientist express doubts about human induced climate change, but having doubts is not the same as disagreeing with the IPCC’s conclusions which is the way the survey results are portrayed by the denialists.
Sadly your second point includes a great many free market proponents. They seem to be as poorly informed about the free market as they are about AGW. If we had a perfect free market the atmosphere would not be an unpriced commodity, incandescent lightbulbs would have no market share because owning them costs a lot more than owner a compact flourescent, and prospective homebuyers would obtain an energy audit as routinely as they abtain LIM reports. Perfect information, rational decision making and perfect competition are prerequisites of a perfect free market. Unfortunately governments seem to be just as imperfect and rarely ensure that the shortcomings in the markets are adressed.
In fact, OPECs apparent realisation that it needs to conserve it’s resource to benefit future generations of it’s own populations is probably the only really effective AGW mitigation strategy that any governments have come up with so far.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)